Alpe d'Huez wrote:No, I don't. But I'm puzzled why they chose 1982 as a turning point, unless they're going to dissect it the way you mentioned. OR, I can only guess they chose the year arbitrarily, and don't really give a crap about cycling, and just assume everyone is doped up to their eyeballs while the governing powers do next to nothing about it, and they can wag their moral finger at it being a sissy sport filled with cheaters. All while the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. are presumed mostly clean.

Right.

It is just silly, madcap humor. Nothing deep, I doubt anything to read into. Think Bill Murray or Mel Brooks.

Alpe d'Huez wrote:No, I don't. But I'm puzzled why they chose 1982 as a turning point, unless they're going to dissect it the way you mentioned. OR, I can only guess they chose the year arbitrarily, and don't really give a crap about cycling, and just assume everyone is doped up to their eyeballs while the governing powers do next to nothing about it, and they can wag their moral finger at it being a sissy sport filled with cheaters. All while the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. are presumed mostly clean.

Right.

It is just silly, madcap humor. Nothing deep, I doubt anything to read into. Think Bill Murray or Mel Brooks.

I would bet it's about the threads. And the hair.

"Christmas is tomorrow... Let's get in the break." - Matt Hayman, 4/9/16"What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness." - Tolstoy

Alpe d'Huez wrote:No, I don't. But I'm puzzled why they chose 1982 as a turning point, unless they're going to dissect it the way you mentioned. OR, I can only guess they chose the year arbitrarily, and don't really give a crap about cycling, and just assume everyone is doped up to their eyeballs while the governing powers do next to nothing about it, and they can wag their moral finger at it being a sissy sport filled with cheaters. All while the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. are presumed mostly clean.

Right.

You know, you're sounding remarkably like one of those "I'm not [insert noun here] but" types who are what they say they're not: you say you're not looking for a doctoral thesis but you're expecting it to play to that level of analysis. One more time: it's a 40-45 comedy, a mockumentary. Are you going to tell me you can't laugh at a Woody Allen baseball joke because it isn't also pointing to football and basketball and ice hockey for its humour? Really?

WRT " unless they're going to dissect it the way you mentioned": the only things I'm dissecting are the lack of a sense of humour in several round here and your own inaccuracy in saying that there was some sort of doping ceasefire in 1982.

Maybe if you stopped seeking significance everywhere you could appreciate the humour.

hrotha wrote:The more you know about a subject, the more research is necessary and the more spot-on the humour has to be for it to resonate with you. This isn't exactly earth-shattering.

Yes, Carry On... Don't Lose Your Head was *such* a let down after I read all those books about the French Revolution. Where was all the commentary on the international struggle for hegemony and the reform of the tax system? All they did was wag their moral finger at it being a sissy revolution filled with French people. Tch!

hrotha wrote:The more you know about a subject, the more research is necessary and the more spot-on the humour has to be for it to resonate with you. This isn't exactly earth-shattering.

This. I remember a few years ago someone made fun of Colombian Nascar driver JP Montoya, who was late getting to his car. The narrator went with "maybe he's having a burrito". To which his the colour guy could've been the other way around, TBH) laughed.

And I was, just befuddled. Why is this funny? Is there something I'm missing? It took me a while before I realized he must think that Colombian food and Mexican food are the same thing. I mean, I don't think that's bigoted or anything, it's just I was completely lost there. The other guy was laughing at the joke. I just didn't get it. I took me a while, and by the time I got there it clanged flatter than a basketball off the underside of a rim.

So yeah, I mean, ignorance is bliss. If you can compartmentalize and see the humour in it, good for you. As it stars HWMNBN, who I stridently believe is an evil, petty, attention starved-person who should best be ignored I probably won't ever give it a chance. Maybe if it's 2AM and there's nothing else on. But I could find it funny, then, I've enjoyed the Lonely Islands skits and Brooklyn 9-9.

"Christmas is tomorrow... Let's get in the break." - Matt Hayman, 4/9/16"What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness." - Tolstoy

hrotha wrote:The more you know about a subject, the more research is necessary and the more spot-on the humour has to be for it to resonate with you. This isn't exactly earth-shattering.

This. I remember a few years ago someone made fun of Colombian Nascar driver JP Montoya, who was late getting to his car. The narrator went with "maybe he's having a burrito". To which his the colour guy could've been the other way around, TBH) laughed.

I prefer to think they were just making fun of Montoya's propensity for being overweight and disregarding teams' indications on diet

This I just love: "So yeah, I mean, anyone who laughs at this is just a moron."

Said while totally not getting a burrito joke. LOL!

And you really think a brief scene equates to "starring" - FFS did LA "star" in Dodgeball? Did he "star" in You, Me and Dupree? You really think he's eligible for a Best Actor gong, even a Best Supporting Actor?

fmk_RoI wrote:This I just love: "So yeah, I mean, anyone who laughs at this is just a moron."

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Everyone who can compartmentalize must be a moron. Or something.

fmk_RoI wrote:And you really think a brief scene equates to "starring" - FFS did LA "star" in Dodgeball? Did he "star" in You, Me and Dupree? You really think he's eligible for a Best Actor gong, even a Best Supporting Actor?

You do realize you're both pestering us for taking things too seriously and pestering me for using an unreasonably generous definition of the neologism "star"? And all of this as you continue to chide us for engaging in overly frivolous debate?

"Christmas is tomorrow... Let's get in the break." - Matt Hayman, 4/9/16"What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness." - Tolstoy

hrotha wrote:The more you know about a subject, the more research is necessary and the more spot-on the humour has to be for it to resonate with you. This isn't exactly earth-shattering.

Yes, Carry On... Don't Lose Your Head was *such* a let down after I read all those books about the French Revolution. Where was all the commentary on the international struggle for hegemony and the reform of the tax system? All they did was wag their moral finger at it being a sissy revolution filled with French people. Tch!

I think you may be wasting your time arguing about this one.

If anyone wants to know what this film will be like, go and watch a film called 'Seven Days in Hell' (dodgy versions available on Youtube). It's about tennis. Same director, same writer, same star, same mockumentary style.

If you want an average dumb comedy with a few genuine laughs, you're in luck. If you want an incisive satire on pro cycling with lots of in-jokes for fans, think again. I doubt the makers could name more than half a dozen pro cyclists.

Can't wait to see it but only when it comes out on Netflix or some other media that compares with Netflix. I just can't bring myself to pay to watch an Andy Samberg movie, this or any other one. They're all bad movies but good for a laugh or two but mostly just bad...

Darryl Websterwrote: "Nothing seems to blind peeps as much as patriotism does it!"

Irondan wrote:I just can't bring myself to pay to watch an Andy Samberg movie, this or any other one. They're all bad movies but good for a laugh or two but mostly just bad...

I'm confused: you can't bring yourself to do it yet you profess knowledge that suggests you've actually done it a lot. Does someone strap you to the chair and force your eyes open à la the Ludovico technique?

Irondan wrote:I just can't bring myself to pay to watch an Andy Samberg movie, this or any other one. They're all bad movies but good for a laugh or two but mostly just bad...

I'm confused: you can't bring yourself to do it yet you profess knowledge that suggests you've actually done it a lot. Does someone strap you to the chair and force your eyes open à la the Ludovico technique?

Irondan wrote:I just can't bring myself to pay to watch an Andy Samberg movie, this or any other one. They're all bad movies but good for a laugh or two but mostly just bad...

I'm confused: you can't bring yourself to do it yet you profess knowledge that suggests you've actually done it a lot. Does someone strap you to the chair and force your eyes open à la the Ludovico technique?

I just mean that I'll wait until I can watch it on Netflix, where I watch lots of bad movies without being strapped to the chair with my eyes forced open.

I'll watch a bad movie for a laugh, I just don't want to pay extra to do it is all.

Darryl Websterwrote: "Nothing seems to blind peeps as much as patriotism does it!"